Professional Documents
Culture Documents
> · /: 1 ' L· r k o f Co u rt
j, ' ~ . ~~ £) ; \' ns ; () n
Plaintiff-Appellee, Present:
x--------------------~-~~-~~~~:~~~'.'.~~~----~~-~--------x
DECISION
MART/RES, J.:
THE FACTS
That on or about the 21st day of August, 2009 in Caloocan City, Metro
Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously maintain in his house at 21 Tagaytay St.,
Caloocan City, a drug den, dive or resort where dangerous drugs are
4
habitually dispensed for use by the customers and addicts.
That on or about the 21st day of August, 2009 in Caloocan City, Metro
Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody, and
control dried crushed leaves and seeds wrapped in a newsprint and
contained in transparent plastic "tea bag" marked "ELS-21-8-09-06"
weighing 1.0022 grams, when subjected for laboratory examination gave
positive result to the tests for Mar~juana, a dangerous drug. 5
That on or about the 21st day of August, 2009 in Caloocan City, Metro
Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession, custody, and
control several strips of used aluminum foil in a transparent plastic bag,
several pieces of used plastic sachet in a transparent "tea bag," and a
plastic tube intended for sniffing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug. 6
4
Id. at 277.
Id. at 25.
6
Id. at 48.
Id. at 269, docketed as Crim. Case No. C-82012.
Id. at 174.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 223142
The prosecution tried to prove its cases against Santos through the
testimony of Special Investigator Elson Saul (Saul), Agents Jerome
Bomediano (Bomediano), Henry Kanapi (Kanapi) and Atty. Fatima Liwalug
(Atty. Liwalug), all from the Reaction, Arrest and Interdiction Division
(RAID) of the National Bureau of Investigation (NB!), and Nicanor Cruz, Jr.
(Cruz), of the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division (FCD).
During the conduct of the search at the living room on the second
floor of the house, Saul found inside the bedroom and beside the bed of
Santos several used and unused foil strips either crumpled or rolled, the size
of a cigarette stick. The foil strips, 18 numbering fourteen, were found inside
a baby powder container. 19 He also found unused small plastic sachets. 20
Saul placed the foil and plastic sachets on the center table in the living room.
When Saul frisked Santos, he .found marijuana leaves wrapped in paper on
the right pocket of his pants. Saul informed Santos of his constitutional
rights and placed the marijuana leaves on top of the center table. Saul
searched the rooms on the second floor but found nothing. From a trash can
in the kitchen, Saul found used small transparent sachets which he also
placed on the center table. Loquinario-Flores, who was caught on video
selling to the informant aluminum foil to be used with drugs, and two minor
children were found on the first floor of the house. The children admitted
that they were part of a gang in the area. 21
15
Records, pp. 347-348; Exhs. "N" and "N-1."
16
TSN, 4 October 2011, pp. 4-6; TSN, 29 September 2010, p. 10; TSN, 9 March 2011, p. 5.
17
TSN, 29 September 20 I 0, pp. 7-10.
18
Exh. "K."
19
Exh. "L."
20
Exh. "M."
21
TSN, 29 September 2010, pp. 10-14, 24; TSN, 10 November 2010, pp. 4-6; TSN, 29 March 2011, pp.
15-16;TSN,40ctober2011,p.10.
22
Records, p. "45
_, , E xh . "H ."
23
Id. at 330-332, Exhs. "I", "1-1", and "I-2."
24
TSN, 29 September 2010, pp.14-17, 20 and 25-26.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 223142
The testimony of Cruz, the forensic chemist, was dispensed with after
the parties agreed to stipulate on the matters he would testify and after a
short cross-examination by the defense.
The RTC 26 ruled that the entry in the house of Santos by the NBI team
and the subsequent confiscation of the paraphernalia and marijuana were
valid and legal since the team had a search warrant. Moreover, it held that
the search was conducted following proper procedure. Thus, the R TC
resolved the cases as follows:
Premises considered, this court finds and so holds the accused Rolando
Santos y Zaragoza GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of
Sections 6, 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and imposes
upon him the following:
P1
Imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(1'500,000.00);
25 TSN, 22 May 2012, pp. 3-4; TSN, 26 June 2012, pp. 3-7; TSN, 31 July 2012, pp. 4-5.
26
Records, pp. 408-422; penned by Judge Aurelio R. Ralar, Jr.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 223142
The drugs and drug paraphernalia subject matter of these cases are hereby
confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt with in
accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.
In Criminal Case No. C-82009, the CA, Fourth Division27 ruled that
the RTC should not have given much weight to the video footages because
these were not identified and authenticated by the confidential informant
who took them. It held that the prosecution failed to present any witness who
had personal knowledge and who could have testified that Santos' house was
a drug den. The team, on the other hand, failed to show that Santos or any
other person was committing illegal activities inside the house. It found that
the testimony of the confidential informant was essential and indispensable
for the conviction of Santos because the NBI agents did not have any
personal knowledge as to the alleged illegal activities in the house that
would characterize it as a drug den. 2.s
against her for violating Sec. 7, Art. II of R.A. 9165. Despite the fact that
Loquinario-Flores did not appeal, the CA relied on the dictum that
everything in an appealed case is open for review by the appellate court. 30
In Criminal Case Nos. C-82010 and C-82011, the CA held that the
prosecution was able to show the guilt of Santos beyond reasonable doubt. It
held that the testimony of Saul was straightforward and that there was no
proof that he had ill motive to testify against Santos. On the other hand, it
found the defense of frame-up put up by Santos was self-serving which
failed to rebut the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution; and
that the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of Kanapi and Bomediano
were on trivial and immaterial details that do not affect their credibility. 31
Hence, the appeal of Santos was decided as follows:
SO ORDERED.
ISSUES
I.
II.
OUR RULING
each other.
35
fa'/
defense which was consistent, straightforward, and complementary with
34
People v. Calantiao, 736 Phil. 661, 674-675 (2014).
35
CA rollo, p. 58.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 223142
To justify his claim, Santos averred that when Saul first testified he
stated that the second floor of the house had a living room, kitchen, and two
rooms. It was when Saul allegedly frisked Santos that he found several used
and unused aluminum foil and a sachet of marijuana, but nothing was found
inside the two rooms. When Saul was again put on the witness stand, he
allegedly admitted that the five disposable lighters and the strips of
aluminum foil were found inside Santos' bedroom. 36
The contention of Santos that the members of the raiding team gave
an altogether different account as to who actually witnessed the
implementation of the search warrant, 42 is a trivial and inconsequential
matter that does not affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. These
matters do not deal with the central fact of the crime. Besides, it has been
held, time and again, that minor inconsistencies and contradictions in the
declarations of witnesses do not destroy the witnesses' credibility but even
enhance their truthfulness as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed
• 43
testimony.
Equally important is that it is the general rule that "the factual findings
of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its
assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions on the
credibility of the witnesses on which said findings were anchored are
accorded great respect. This great ~espect rests in the trial court's first-hand
access to the evidence presented during the trial, and in its direct observation
of the witnesses and their demeanor while they testify on the occurrences
and events attested to." 46 Settled also is the rule that factual findings of the
appellate court affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court,
unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with
arbitrariness, capriciousness, or palpable error. 47 Let it be underscored that
appeal in criminal cases throws the whole case open for review and it is the
duty of the appellate court to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the
appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. 48 The Court I'/
41
People v. Dela Trinidad, supra note 39 at p. 348.
42
CA rollo, pp. 58-59.
3
-1 People v. Rebotazo, 711 Phil. 150, 172-173 (2013).
44
People v. Salvador, 726 Phil. 389, 402(2014).
45
Zalamedav. People, 614 Phil. 710, 733 (2009).
46
Luy v. People of the Philippines, G .R. No. 200087, 12 October 2016, 805 SCRA 710, 718-719; citing
Gulmatico v. People, 562 Phil. 78,87 (2007); People v. De Guzman, 564 Phil. 282, 290 (2007); People
v. Cabugatan, 544 Phil. 468, 479 (2007); People v. Taan, 536 Phil. 943, 954 (2006); Perez v. People,
515 Phil. 195, 203-204 (2006); People v. Tonog, Jr., 477 Phil. 161, 177 (2004); People v. Genita, Jr.,
469 Phil. 334, 341-342 (2004); People v. Pacheco, 468 Phil. 289, 299 (2004); People v. Abolidor,
467 Phil. 709, 716 (2004); People v. Santiago, 465 Phil. 151, 162 (2004).
47
People v. Bontuyan, 742 Phil. 788, 798 (2014).
48
People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 225 (2015).
Decision 11 G.R. No. 223142
had assiduously reviewed the records but found nothing to qualify these
cases as falling within the exception to the general rule.
Santos asserted that the search warrant was only for an undetermined
amount of shabu; thus, the discovery of the incriminating items other than
that described in the warrant must result from bodily search or seized in
plain view to be admissible in evidence. 49
It was the position of Santos that there was doubt as to the whether the
marijuana and paraphernalia seized from him were the very same objects
offered in court as corpus delicti. He claimed that there was no explanation
given regarding the items confiscated from Santos from the time these were
seized until their turnover for laboratory examination. 51
The Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) - the policy making and strategy
formulating body in the planning and formulation of policies and programs
on drug prevention and control tasked to develop and adopt a
comprehensive, integrated, unified, and balanced national drug abuse
prevention and control strategy5 3 - has expressly defined chain of custody
involving dangerous drugs and other substances in the following terms in
Sec. l(b) ofDDB Regulation No. I, Series of2002, 54 to wit:fiA'J
49
CA rollo, p. 60
50
Tionco v. People, 755 Phil. 646, 654 (2015).
51 cArollo, p. 62.
52
Rontos v. People, 710 Phil. 328, 336-337 (2013).
53 sec. 77, R.A. No. 9165.
54 Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment pursuant to Section 21, Article II of the IRR of RA
No. 9165 in relation to Section 81 (b ), Article IX of R.A. No. 9165.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 223142
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative
or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
(a) The apprehending office/team having initial custody and control of the
drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or
the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a
copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph
shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or
at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures;
Provided, further that non-compliance with these requirement" under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
P"f
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and
custody over said items.
55
Peoplev. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121, 129-130 (2013).
Decision 13 G.R. No. 223142
The Court has explained in a catena of cases the four (4) links that
should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated
item:first, the seizure and markil_'lg, if practicable, of the illegal drug
recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the
turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination;
andfourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized
from the forensic chemist to the court. 56
Saul testified that after he gathered the drug paraphernalia and the
marijuana which he confiscated from Santos, he prepared the inventory of
seized items/property58 in the presence of Santos, and the respective
representatives of the DOJ, media, and the barangay. In addition to the
inventory, he marked the confiscated items as follows:
Anent the second and third links, on the same day that Saul arrived at
the NBI RAID office after the service of the search warrant, he forthwith
prepared the disposition form 59 for the turnover of the seized items to the
FCD. The seized items were received by the FCD on 21 August 2009 at fi'f
56
People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 94-95 (2014); citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (20 l 0).
57 People v. Somoza, 714 Phil. 368, 387-388 (2013).
58
Records, p. 345, Exh. "H."
59
Id.atp.201,Exh."A."
Decision 14 G.R. No. 223142
On the fourth link, the testimony of Cruz was dispensed with after the
parties had agreed to stipulate on the following facts:
In Crim. Case No. C-82010, Santos was charged with and convicted
67
of violation of Sec. 11, Art. II ofR.A. No. 9165, the elements of which are /Jt'I
65
Zalameda v. People, supra note 45 at p. 740.
66
People v. Dela Trinidad, supra note 39 at p. 360.
67
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (PI0,000,000.00) shall
be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the
following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
( 1) 10 grams or more of opium;
(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;
(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;
(4) I 0 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;
(5) 50 grams or more ofmethamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";
(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
(8) I 0 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to,
methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDA) or "ecstasy," paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA),
trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxyamphetamine
(GHB), and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having
any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as
determined and promulgated by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.
Decision 16 G.R. No. 223142
Saul testified that when he served the search warrant on Santos at his
house on 21 August 2009, he found thereat several strips of used aluminum
foil in a transparent plastic bag, several pieces of used plastic sachet in a
transparent tea bag, and a plastic tube intended for sniffing shabu, which he
respectively marked "ELS-21-8-09-0 l ," "ELS-21-8-09-04," and "ELS-21-8-
09-05 ." Similar to the marijuana,_ Santos failed to justify his possession of
these items. Significantly, Dangerous Drugs Report No. DD-09-47 showed
that the examination made on the washings of these confiscated items
yielded positive results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
SO ORDERED.
s UE~~~TIRES
Associate Justice
carry such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia in the practice of their profession,
the Board shall prescribe the necessary implementing guidelines thereof.
The possession of such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for
any of the purposes enumerated in the preceding paragraph shall be prima facie evidence that the
possessor has smoked, consumed, administered to himself/herself, injected, ingested or used a
dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have. violated Section 15 of this Act.
70
Zalameda v_ People, supra note 45 at p. 727.
Decision 18 G.R. No. 223142
WE CONCUR:
1i.:.iLA.r'~J.~DER G. GESMUNDO
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of t!fe opinion of the
Court's Division.
CERTIFICATION
Fi 7 z ~- ~-~·~
-,1'.:~;.'rj
~ 1,d!ECOP\'
OhiP'·
J_ ~ '- ,: ~ '-·
~N
•. ':.;of Court
.f'~ision
FEB U2 2018